Metropolitan Agafangel: The practical application of the Ordinance of 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362.

The practical application of Regulation

His Holiness the Patriarch, the Holy Synod

and the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

from 7/20 in November 1920 for the number 362.

In
view of the difficult situation that has arisen due to the Bolsheviks
came to power - first of all, the Civil War, with its ever-changing
boundaries of general chaos and the absence of any means of
communication was with those who happened to be behind the front line,
higher instance of ecclesiastical authority in Russia - Patriarch Tikhon
in the United presence of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council
of the Russian Orthodox Church 7/20 November 1920 Resolution of the
governing church life in the territories to which the connection was
lost Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority. This Regulation (it is often
called the Decree №362), has had a tremendous impact on the lives of the
Russian Church, as established canonical norms of life dioceses and
parishes in totalitarian persecution godless forces.

Even before the publication of the Decree №362, in
November 1918, the Provisional Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority was
established by the Meeting of the Siberian church in Tomsk, united, led
by the Archbishop of Omsk Sylvester 13 bishops of the dioceses of the
Urals and Siberia in the territory under the rule of Admiral Kolchak.
The South-Russian Church Council, held from 18 to 24 May 1919 in
Stavropol (within the territory of the Volunteer Army of General
Denikin), which was attended, led by the oldest in southern Russia
Stavropol Archbishop Agafadorom, all the bishops, as well as 4 members
from each of the Diocesan Council was established Church Administration
in the South of Russia, chaired by the Archbishop of Novocherkassk
Mitrofan, Archbishop Demetrios composed of two presbyters and two
laymen. Both the Office arose solely because of lack of communication
with the Patriarch Tikhon and the Patriarchal Church Administration in
Moscow. When communication is restored, this Office would have to
resign. Upon arrival, the Metropolitan of Kiev Anthony in November 1919
from Kiev to the Volunteer Army, he, as the old hierarchy, in fact,
became the head of the Church Administration in the South of Russia. (1)

November
19, 1920 under the command of General PN Wrangel to Constantinople
profits and focused on the Bosphorus over 125 Russian and foreign ships
fleets, overcrowded Russian people, including about 150,000 people. (2)
On the same day on the ship "Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich" held its
first overseas meeting of the Supreme Church Administration in the
South Russia, which ruled: "In view of the concentration of huge numbers
of refugees in different countries and parts of the world, without
communicating with Soviet Russia and are not able to communicate with
the highest church authority to the Holy Patriarch, and also because of
the need to care for the Russian army to leave the Crimea, - a) to
continue the mandate of the members of the Supreme Church Administration
servicing all aspects of church life of refugees and army in all the
states that do not have relations with the Patriarch, and b) a place of
management actions to elect Constantinople as the most central point,
and c) to communicate with the Patriarchate of Constantinople to
determine the canonical relationship; <...> (3) has also been
renamed Higher Church Administration in the South of Russia in the
Russian Higher Church Administration abroad. (4) Thus, the Russian
Ecclesiastical Authority for the first time surpassed the canonical
boundaries of the Local Russian Church. It is known that such a step
Archbishop Anthony decided, after much hesitation, and hesitation.
Initially he intended to retire to Mount Athos, and all Russian
Orthodox, was out of the canonical territory of the Russian Church, to
join the existing local churches. However, under the influence of the
existing situation - the urgent need to preserve a single flock, seeking
to return home (including survivability Russian army), Metropolitan
Anthony became firmly on the path to save the exiled Russian Church.
December 22, 1920 for the Diploma №9084 followed by the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, in which "the Russian hierarchs was granted to carry
Russian Orthodox refugees all that is required by the Church and
religion for solace and encouragement Russian Orthodox refugees." (5) They were allowed to "form for pastoral ministry temporary church commission ( epitropiyu
) prednachalstvennym under control of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for
the general supervision and guidance of the church life of the Russian
Church colonies within Orthodox countries, as well as Russian soldiers
<...> ". (6) It was, in fact, the formation of Russian Church
Centre abroad under the omophorion of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople. December 29, 1920 locum tenens of the Ecumenical Throne,
Metropolitan Prussian Dorofei Metropolitan Anthony wrote: "Under your
leadership, the Patriarchate allows any undertaking for the Patriarchate
know that your Eminence has done nothing non-canonical". (7) In early
1921, the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority abroad, united around
Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia Anthony moved to Serbia at the
invitation of the Serbian Patriarch Demetrios. This move prompted
primarily dire financial situation of Russian in Turkey. December 6,
1927 of the Serbian Church, referring to the 39 regulation VI Ecumenical
Council, stated: "According to the canons of the Holy Orthodox Church,
when the Orthodox hierarchy with his flock as a result of persecution in
the refugee enters the territory of another church, she has the right
to self-organization and management. As a result that such a right must
be recognized and for the Russian church hierarchy in the territory of
the Serbian Church ". (8) It was, in fact, a sort of autocephaly granted
ROCA Serbian Church. Thus, the Russian Ecclesiastical Authority for the
first time received full independence and autonomy of the canonical
territory of a local church.

Patriarch
Tikhon recognized Higher Church Administration abroad, as evidenced,
for example, in the holy Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Supreme
Church Council №424 dated April 8, 1921, confirming the appointment by
the Office of the Exarch for Western Europe due to lack of communication
with Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd ( The decree was listed
rationale decisions: "In view of the decision HCA held abroad"). (9) It
is known in the holy Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church
Council №193 dated October 13, 1921, according to which the HCA abroad
does not bless distribute its activities in Poland , Finland, Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania, but leaves "is the same with his management
authority" (ie, continue to operate in Western Europe, America, China
and other countries, unless noted); was denied a petition for the
establishment of the HCA office "His Holiness for the governor-border";
and decided "reports of alleged convene on October 1 st. v. Council of
the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to take note" (10) (which, actually,
is a blessing to hold I-Diaspora Council).

According
to AS Gershelman, who oversaw the bond Foreign Synod Patriarch Tikhon
through Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Valaam Monastery and for all calls for the
need "from Moscow was one answer: Decree of November 1920 (Decree №362 -
approx. + MA.) Patriarch gave the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
the opportunity to organize themselves, and because of the difficulty of
relations with Moscow and its complex of Russia (ROCOR) relations with
the Soviet authorities, to live independently. "(11) Thus, the legality
of the Decree №362 of the Russian Orthodox Church was clearly and
definitely confirmed Higher Church Authority, headed by Patriarch
Tikhon. All the recent statements of Patriarch Tikhon (in which,
however, nowhere does it say that it does not recognize the canonicity
of foreign bishops and prohibits them from serving) bezpretsedentnym
dictated by pressure from the Soviet authorities, who coveted his
statements (under threat of execution, the method of arrest and
interrogation) directed against the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury
and, most importantly, Metropolitan Anthony, calls on the international
community to speak out against the established political regime in
Russia. Privately, Patriarch Tikhon urged foreign bishops to ignore the
Soviet authorities forced his statements and to live their lives.

***

Here,
I think it would be appropriate to quote the remarks of Bishop
Nathanael relatively Decree №362. In his ther, who
were abroad, Russian bishops on organize a higher level of church
authority <...> Even if we were in the territory of a local
church, could not have any questions about our transition to the
jurisdiction of the Local Church. Could be a question: Is it possible to
have it or not such a Local Church authorities Church perform services
on their territory. "(12) Similarly, the ROCOR lived, until recently, in
the territory of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Indeed, Decree №362 if
not directly, then indirectly prohibited the use of canons prescribing
refugees pour into the local Churches, in which they find themselves.
Instead of them, save justification jurisdictional belonging to the
Russian Church as it was meant rule 39 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
According to this rule, Cypriot Bishop John Hellespontine in the field
were given the right to continue managing their church people, who left
as a result of military events Cyprus. Here, as one might expect, to a
certain extent affected has become, unfortunately, a traditional
opposition of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate. Constantinople
gave the Tomos of autocephaly parts of the Russian Church in Poland,
Estonia, Latvia and Finland, despite the protests of the Russian
hierarchy. Moscow, in turn, actually banned its refugees pour into the
other Local Churches. According to statistics, in 1920 the Patriarchate
of Constantinople had a flock, hardly exceeds 30 thousand people, while
its territory arrived more than 100 thousand Russian Orthodox refugees.
(13) Thus, when Patriarch Tikhon ROCOR was the only authoritative canon
of senior management Russian Orthodox Church outside of the fatherland
established legitimate ecclesiastical authority in Moscow and in all
countries of its presence. That the Office had to obey all Russian
dioceses and parishes abroad. Even raised the question of granting the
status of Primate of ROCOR plenipotentiary representative of the
Patriarch (the assignment of the title "Patriarch of Moscow governor
abroad"). Therefore, the ROCOR Synod imposed legal rebuke to those who
depart from the Office (eg, Metropolitan Eulogius and Plato), as causing
a split in the Russian Church. After 1927, when the Office of
Metropolitan Sergius was completely controlled by atheists, the Soviet
authorities through this management tried to neutralize the Church
Abroad at the international level, contrasting it with its controlled
entity appointed by the communist authorities of the management and is
now called the Moscow Patriarchate.

***

Eligibility
Decree №362 application to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia is not in doubt (in fact, this Decision and published
specifically for the organization of church life abroad). Around the
Office united all Russian bishops, all parts of the Russian Church
outside the borders of the Russian state. Russian Church Abroad
recognized by all the local church. Manage abroad consider it their
supreme Kirierarhom Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, (14) after his death -
Metropolitan Peter, and after the death of Metropolitan Peter
established the commemoration of the "Orthodox bishopric persecuted
Russian Church" that, by itself, is also a necessary condition for
staying on the basis of the Decree №362 (as evidence of the highest
ecclesiastical court). In paragraph 1 of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia clearly stated: "The Russian Orthodox Church Outside
of Russia is an inseparable part of the local Russian Orthodox Church,
temporarily self-governing cathedral until the fall of the godless
regime in Russia, in accordance with Regulation ST. Patriarch St. Synod
and the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Church from 7/20 in
November 1920 for the number 362 ". (15) It should be noted that Decree
№362 in no way provides for the establishment of the Supreme Church
Authority in the local church, and sends to solve those issues only at
the Local Council: "10) All taken on the ground, in accordance with
these instructions events later in the case of restoration of the
central ecclesiastical authority, must be conceived for the approval of
the latter." That is, to stay in the Decree №362, ROCA should recognize
(and has always recognized), even hypothetically, the presence for
themselves higher level of church authorities in the Russian Church,
which it is accountable. In the ROCOR never raised the issue of
declaring itself the highest authority of ecclesiastical authority for
the whole local church. Even to such action and called in his letter to
the First Hierarch of ROCOR Metropolitan Vitaly Archpriest Lev Lebedev.
Metropolitan Vitaly called the proposal absurd.

Many see a contradiction between the Council of Bishops adopted the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of 2/15 May 1990 Regulations
on the parishes of the Free Russian Orthodox Church (16) according to
which began to open ROCOR parishes in the territory of the USSR and
Paragraph 1 of the ROCOR in 1964: " The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is an inseparable part of the local Russian Orthodox Church, temporarily self-governing cathedral until the fall of the godless regime in Russia (emphasis mine, + MA). However,
there is no contradiction, because the very adoption of Resolution 1990
indicates that the Soviet Union at that time there was no Church
Administration, which ROCOR could start "in intercourse for the
organization of higher instance of ecclesiastical authority ", as
prescribed by Decree №362. In fact, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
of Russia in 1990, entered the territory of the Soviet Union as the sole
legitimate Control of the Russian Orthodox Church. So then thought of
the parishes almost everything. Of course, this can be interpreted as
recognition of de facto only a fullness of canonical authority
throughout the Russian Church. However, again, going back to the
Resolution №362, restore full authority per se only Russian Local
Council. Whatever it was, the adoption of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of 2/15 May 1990 Regulations
on the parishes of the Free Russian Orthodox Church, Church
Administration in the South of Russia, which arose in May 1919, gone
abroad and became the Russian Church Abroad, again returned to the
canonical territory of the Russian Church. But did not catch here as
legal (canonical) headed by the Local Russian Church, and any other
ecclesiastical center belonging to this church, which could enter into
communion.

I
purposely brought here (very briefly, unfortunately), the historical
part of gaining self-organization and management of the Russian Orthodox
Church on the basis of Resolution №362 (as well as on the basis of the
decision of the Serbian Church from 6 December 1927 to grant
independence ROCA outside the canonical territory of the Russian
Church), to show how serious such a move and how many factors determine
its practicability. And in order to compare with the ease with which
many treat this Decree today.

***

During
the revolutionary events in Russia during Renovationist turmoil and
arrest of Patriarch Tikhon, his Deputy Metropolitan Agafangel his
message for №214 from 05 (18) .06.1922 year called the All-Russian flock
guided by Decree 362 words: "Beloved in the Lord archpastors! Deprived
at the time the highest rukovoditelstva you now manage their own
dioceses, in accordance with the Scriptures, and the usual canons of the
Church canon law, conscience and episcopal oath, pending recovery
Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority. Finally, to administer affairs, which
claims before St. resolution. Synod, and in cases of doubt, please
contact our humility. "(17) This regulation Metropolitan Agafangel still
true of the All-Russian flock, staying abroad - it points directly"
manage their own dioceses "without the approval of the Moscow Synod.
That is, this message implicitly repudiated the acts previously issued a
decree dated 22 April / May 5, 1922 for the dissolution of the HCA
abroad. On the territory of the USSR on the basis of this Decree and
acted all Josephite catacomb dioceses and parishes. Unfortunately, until
the end of the 1980s have not saved any ecclesiastical center of the
Catacomb Church, acting on the basis of the Decree №362, that, in fact,
prompted the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR to the decision on the
opening of their parishes in the territory of historical Russia.

***

However,
if in times of persecution and the existence of the USSR and the free
world "Iron Curtain" practical application of the Decree №362 was clear,
then today its application raises many questions, as this decree
continue to justify their isolation many members of the "alternative"
Orthodoxy. Usually they interpret it as "Decree on self-government of
dioceses", while correct, nevertheless, would be to define it as an
indication of the bishops for their practical actions in the event of
physical isolation of a particular church group (including the Central
Church of the control). The basic meaning of this Regulation is
contained in the second paragraph of his: "If
the diocese, as a result of the movement of the front, changes of state
borders, etc. will be out of communication with the Higher Church
Administration itself or Higher Church Administration, headed by His
Holiness Patriarch cease operations , the diocesan bishop immediately
enters into relations with the bishops of neighboring dioceses for the
purpose of organizing a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority for
several dioceses in similar conditions (in the form of a temporary
church government or a Metropolitan district, or anything else). "(18)

As
follows from the text of the Decree, it is applicable only in the case
of a complete lack of communication with the Central Office (in the case of "separation of the diocese with the highest church authority or termination of the last"), and only if prescribed by " the
diocesan bishop immediately enter into relations with the bishops of
neighboring dioceses for the organization of higher instance of
ecclesiastical authority. " It is clear that the restoration of
central authority, "the diocesan bishop immediately enters into
relations" with that. There is absolutely no indication as to separate
from the neighboring dioceses, and from the central ecclesiastical
authority. That is, it can not be justified by the Decree no separation
as such (which, unfortunately, is often done), on the contrary, it is
intended to preserve the church dispensation in times of persecution so
that when the time to stop, the Church could be as painless as possible
to restore its complete structure.

Currently
Decree №362 justify its existence, for example, separated from the ROCA
Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC). According to its Primate
Metropolitan Valentine: "The canonical status of the Russian Orthodox
Autonomous Church is based, as we all know, in the Decree of St. Tikhon,
Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia the Confessor, the Holy Synod and
the Supreme Church Council, that is, the highest ecclesiastical
authority in the Russian Local Church 7 / November 20, 1920, № 362 ".
(19) However, in 1994, when there was a division of the ROCOR and ROAC,
there were no reasons for the autonomous existence of ROAC, because the
relationship between the Synod of Bishops and the lord Valentin took
place. Therefore, in this case, a reference to the Decree №362 totally
unqualified. Education thus the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority
equivalent of a separate national church (since there is practically not
provide any higher authority ecclesiastical authority), and, without
good reason. In this case (as in all others) the reason for separation
from the ROCOR could serve only heresy, condemned earlier Ecumenical
Councils and preached from the pulpit by all members of the Synod of
Bishops. But this, thank God, was not.

Also
Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC), separated from the ROCA, adopted
the following resolution: "On the basis of the Decree svt. Patriarch
Tikhon, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council of the number 362
on 7/20 November 1920, of the offer of the rules concerning the organization the highest ecclesiastical authority in the event of breach
or termination of the Primate and the highest ecclesiastical
authorities, <...> Decide: 1) convert the now existing Russian
Bishops Conference, founded on the Council of Bishops in 1994, the Synod
of Bishops of the Russian True Orthodox Church. "( 20) Here, firstly,
on my own to figure out what in the Decree №362 talking "about the
organization of the Supreme Church Authority", whereas in reality Decree
speaks of a " higher instance of ecclesiastical authority for several dioceses " that there is a big difference. Second, deliberately away from you by adding the words "in the case of violations
"(which are not in the Decree №362), designed to ensure that,
distorting the essence of the Decree, to attribute the right to secede
in the event of any violations on the part of the central
ecclesiastical authority. But Decree №362 just such a right is not
intended. Unfortunately, RTOC not only does not provide for themselves
the presence of a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority (in
accordance with the Decree №362), but, as we see, in fact, declared
itself the highest authority of ecclesiastical authority in Russia. In
the Encyclical Letter of September 29, 2008 Synod of Bishops of the
Russian True Orthodox Church said: " I
can say without exaggeration, <Sacred Council of our Holy Russian
True Orthodox Church>, is a historic event because since the Local
Council of 1917-18. it First Sacred Council of the True Russian Church
in the homeland. "(21) That is, RTOC regards itself as the successor to
Patriarch Tikhon Church Administration (ie, the Mother Church) and the
ROCOR as part of the Russian Church (its" sister "). Which is also
contrary to the spirit and meaning of the Resolution №362. Such a
question can only be described as an accomplished illegal admiration of
ecclesiastical authority, even in relation to declared his Kirierarhu
Metropolitan Vitaly.

Once
again I say, that in this report, I consider the various divisions in
the Russian Church solely in the light of the Decree №362, which, in my
opinion, by far the laws apply only to the formation of the Russian
Church Abroad.

Similarly,
its separate existence committed not entitled to cause the Decree №362
many other groups of Orthodox and non-Orthodox people. The main aim of
this short report - to encourage them to think about bringing their
situation into line canonical norms. I repeat - one of the conditions of
stay in the Decree №362 is the recognition of the existence for
themselves higher level of church authorities. This follows directly
from section 10 of the Regulation ("All adopted <...> according to
these instructions event later <...> should be conceived for the
approval of" the highest ecclesiastical authority). The second condition
- the immediate establishment of communion
with other Orthodox bishops. Those who did not perform and does not
perform these two conditions Decree №362, actually declare themselves
the only Orthodox throughout the world space.

It
should be clear to all of us to realize that separating these days can
justify their actions, only the second Part XV of the Second Council
Regulations (if a bishop or primate of the Church preaches from the
pulpit of St previously convicted. Councils
heresy), but not the Resolution number 362, in which there is no word
on the separation of the existing ecclesiastical authority.

No
autonomous, and the more independent instance of ecclesiastical
authority may not be self-educated, but must necessarily be formed
legally existing higher authority - which in relation to it is the
parent. This law, which we all have to be considered if we want to be
Orthodox Christians. It is impossible to take seriously religious
groups, with ease, the composition of a few people, allegedly on the
basis of the Decree №362, samoprovozglashayuschimi themselves one way or
another "Church." Any unauthorized proclamation breaks the thread of
continuity that connects with the Church founded by Christ and is one of
the characteristic properties of the sect. The Church can not
disappear, "break" in one place and suddenly be in another (as is
claimed by word and deed, many newly formed structures). Holy Tradition
suggests continuity in its canonical and historical part - if
separated from the ROCA Group recognizes canonical Church Abroad, it
must be recognized by it. But on the other hand, part of the Russian
Church Abroad has not in any way the right of education of other church
groups, as well as the right to trial by other parts of the Russian
Orthodox Church. We can only bear witness to the reasons why we can not
be in communion with others. At the same time, we recognize over a court
only legally convened by the All-Russian Local Council, as the highest
instance of ecclesiastical authority.

Russian
Church Abroad was and is flesh ("inseparable part") and one spirit with
the fullness of the Russian national church and its Central Office
headed by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. I believe that it has retained
the flesh and the spirit of genuine patristic Orthodoxy to the present
day. Formed on the basis of canonical higher instance of ecclesiastical
authority - the Mother Church under the control of the All-Russian
Patriarch Tikhon, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside there as a
self-governing part of the Russian Church for 90 years, having an
established its position in the apostasy of our time and its Holy
Tradition, which is an integral part of the Holy Tradition of the
Catholic Church.

If
we wish to be guided (or rather, must be guided) Decree №362, you
should be aware that this decree today prescribes only one thing - to
unite all Orthodox people with the words: " the
diocesan bishop immediately enters into relations with the bishops of
neighboring dioceses. " Other understanding, interpretation and
application of this Regulation in the absence of forced isolation, and there can not be. If the bishops do not, leaving in voluntary
isolation, it is clear that they are willing to church divisions, more
often, in order to satisfy their ambitions than make a canonical crime,
violating the spirit and letter of the Resolution of the Holy. Patriarch
St. Synod and the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Church from
7/20 in November 1920 for the number 362.

Now,
unfortunately, made only hear what he says is the Decree on the
formation of the interim self-management of the Church (keeping in mind
that only part of the Church, and under what circumstances). But the
totalitarian persecution retreated, and now we must hear what he says
about the connection Decree Christians. If we want to save in the Church
of Christ, we should be able to refuse, especially from what could be
called his "individual corporate truth" in order to hear not hear,
unfortunately, for many, but all-powerful voice of church canons, which
essentially and is the voice of God, calling all remaining faithful to
Christ for unity. To unity under the omofor remaining canonical
authority of church government of the Russian Church - Russian Orthodox
Church Abroad.

I
do not know whether we will live up to the Triumph of Russian Orthodoxy
- Canon All-Russian Local Council, but if the Last Judgment
accomplished before this event - so we will stand before the Lord with a
clear conscience, the Orthodox faith, and stronger than our deeds
during the glory of God!

+ Metropolitan Agafangel

Odessa, 2010.

NOTES

(1)
Bishop Nikon (Rklitsky). Biography Anthony Beatitude, Metropolitan of
Kiev and Galicia. T4. The publication of the North American and Canadian
Diocese, 1958, p. 293.

(2)
Bishop Nikon (Rklitsky). Biography Anthony Beatitude, Metropolitan of
Kiev and Galicia. T5. The publication of the North American and Canadian
Diocese, 1959, p. 5.

(19)
Report of the Council of Bishops of the ROAC Metropolitan Valentine of
Suzdal and Vladimir "The life of the Russian Orthodox Church and the
activities of the Synod of Bishops from 1991 to 2008." E. Page RPATs http://www.rpac.ru/article/117/

His Holiness the Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362.

With
the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the
Supreme Church Council in the United presence had a judgment about the
need to further teaches in the circular letter of His Holiness Patriarch
instructions in the event of termination of the activity of the
Diocesan Council, the diocesan bishop to teach the same instructions in
the event of separation of the diocese with the highest church authority
or termination of the latter and, on the basis of the former judgment,
decided:

Circular
letter on behalf of His Holiness to teach the diocesan bishop for
guidance in necessary cases, the following information:

1)
If the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council for any reason stop
their church administration, the diocesan bishop for rukovodstvennymi
career guidance and resolution of cases, according to the rules, going
back to the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority, refers directly to His
Holiness the Patriarch or to the person or institution which is His
Holiness Patriarch for that specified.

2)
In the event that a diocese, as a result of movement of the front,
changes of state borders, and so on. N. Will be out of communication
with the Higher Church Administration itself or Higher Church
Administration, headed by His Holiness Patriarch cease operations, the
diocesan bishop immediately enters into relations with the bishops
neighboring dioceses for the organization of higher instance of
ecclesiastical authority for several dioceses in similar conditions (in
the form of a temporary church government or a Metropolitan district, or
anything else).

3)
Care about the organization of the Supreme Church Authority for the
whole group found themselves in the position shown in Sec. 2 dioceses is
an indispensable duty of the oldest in the group, after the order of
the aforesaid Bishop.

4)
If it is impossible to establish relations with the bishops of
neighboring dioceses continue to organize a higher level of
ecclesiastical authority, the diocesan bishop takes over the howl full
power granted to him by church canons, taking all measures to the
dispensation of local church life and, if it proves necessary, to the
organization diocesan administration, applied to create the conditions
allowing all the cases provided by the canons of the episcopal
authority, with the assistance of the existing bodies of the diocesan
administration of the Diocesan Assembly, the Council, and so on. or
re-organized); in the case of impossibility to make these agencies -
personally and under his responsibility.

5)
If the situation referred to in paragraph. N. 2 and 4, the character
will take longer and even permanent, especially if it is impossible for
the bishop to use the assistance of the diocesan administration most
appropriate (in terms of approval of church order) appears to measure
the separation of the Diocese several local dioceses, for which the
diocesan bishop:

a)
provides its Most Reverend Vicar, enjoying now, according to the
judgment, the rights of semi-independent, all rights diocesan bishop
with the organization when they control, with respect to local
conditions and possibilities;

b)
establish, in the judgment of the conciliar with other bishops of the
diocese, as far as possible, in all major cities of his diocese the
bishop's new with the rights of semi-independent or independent.

6)
separating said in Sec. 5 way Diocese of forms themselves, headed by
the chief of the diocesan bishop of the city church district, which
takes control of the local church affairs according to the canons.

7)
If the position specified in Sec. N. 2 and 4, the diocese will be
deprived of Bishop, the Diocesan Council or, in his absence, the clergy
and lay people are turning to the diocesan bishop nearest or most
accessible to them for convenience Posts diocese, and the aforesaid the
bishop or the commander to control his widowed diocese vicar or he comes
into its management, acting in the cases referred to in para. 5 and in
respect of that diocese in accordance with paragraph. n. 5 and 6, and at
the relevant data widowed diocese can be organized and special
ecclesiastical district.

8)
If for any reason an invitation from a widowed diocese is not followed,
the diocesan bishop mentioned in para. 7 and on their own initiative
assumes about her and her affairs care.

9)
In the case of extreme disorganization of ecclesiastical life, when
certain persons and parishes cease to recognize the authority of the
diocesan bishop, the latter being in the position shown in Sec. N. 2 and
6, do not resign from their hierarchical authority, but organizing of
persons remaining faithful to him, congregations and parishes of -
deanery and diocese, providing where necessary to conduct services even
in private homes and other devices to the premises and interrupted the
ecclesiastical communion with the disobedient.

10)
All taken on the ground, in accordance with these instructions events
later in the case of restoration of the central ecclesiastical
authority, must be conceived for the approval of the latter.

***

Holy Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All RUSSIA

Russian Higher Church Administration Abroad

REPORT

Given
the impossibility under these circumstances, consistent and correct
relations with Your Holiness, on the one hand, and the need to make a
strong organization and the mutual relationships of all foreign
churches, dioceses and communities of the Moscow Patriarchate and
obezpechit spiritual unity in the bosom of your archpastoral power of
all these churches, firmly professing highest canonical jurisdiction of
Your Holiness, on the other hand, and taking into account that the
recognition of your Holiness the Supreme Russian Ecclesiastical
Authority became aware only of the decree of the Patriarch Archbishop
Seraphim, №424, means nothing has been said about the future canonical
position of the Orthodox churches in the state of malignancy: Finland,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, as well as in North America,
Japan, China and Urmia, and yet the church of the new states are
starting to deal with some issues in Russian Higher Church
Administration abroad - and these things last Asking Your Holiness
guidance on the following issues:

1.
Would it not be appropriately recognized institution for all of the
above churches as a unifying body of the senior management of the
Russian Church Outside of the subordination of this body directly to
Your Holiness.

2.
Would it not be given your assent to the establishment of a post abroad
Steward of Your Holiness, the Presidency of the top management of the
Russian Church and is of particular Your Holiness for all foreign
countries.

3.
The blessing is requested to convene a meeting of the Russian Church
Abroad, which is expected as far as possible on the Protection of the
Blessed Virgin Mary on October 1 st. Art. this year.

Asking episcopal prayers and blessings, I have the honor to be Your Holiness, Most Merciful Father Archpastor

My humble novice,

Metropolitan Anthony.

July 1921 number 478

Karlovci (shit) Serbia.

(Investigation
case of Patriarch Tikhon. The collection of documents. According to the
materials of the Central Archive of the FSB of Russia. Orthodox St.
Tikhon Theological Institute. Moscow, 2000, p. 691).

***

In St. 4/17 Synod of October.

Patriarch Tikhon

Your Holiness.

Suddenly
appeared Riga deputy and I slipped the paper in your name for a
signature. I am unable to write a letter, for he now rides. 4 times
wrote to Your Holiness from the Caucasus, the Crimea and Constantinople -
probably not reached. All the provisions of the attached document
developed in Constantinople, when I was in Berlin. Do not think that we
have a desire to expand the power: - I'm not going to claim, if it is
not approved.

I ask for your holy blessing.

Your most humble novice Metropolitan Anthony.

11 / X-'21

(Investigation
case of Patriarch Tikhon. The collection of documents. According to the
materials of the Central Archive of the FSB of Russia. Orthodox St.
Tikhon Theological Institute. Moscow, 2000, p. 694).

***

The Patriarch of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

Resolution of 30 September (13 October) 1921

№193

With
the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the
Supreme Church Council, a compound is present, listening: a report of
the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority of the Russian-abroad, from July / g
for №478, 1) on the establishment in order to strengthen mutual ties
between foreign churches and dioceses communities of the Moscow
Patriarchate Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority of the boundary with the
submission of this body directly to His Holiness Patriarch; 2) the
establishment of the post of governor-general of His Holiness
Patriarch-abroad, what should be the presiding judge in the designated
Higher Church Administration, and 3) to convene on October 1 st.
Assembly of the Russian style of foreign Church.

Acting:
1) Since inappropriate submission for existing-border Higher Church
Administration of the Russian Church all Orthodox churches and
communities of the Moscow Patriarchate outside Soviet Russia, leave this
office with the same powers it, without its extension to the Orthodox
Church in Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, what they
retain the existing now the image of church government, 2) a request to
create the post of governor-general of His Holiness Patriarch of the
boundary, as does not cause, also rejected, and 3) reports of alleged
convene on October 1 st. Art. Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad to take note of. What notify Preosvyaschenneshego Metropolitan
Anthony.

Patriarch Tikhon,

Metropolitan Eusebius,

Archbishop Nicander,

Bishop Seraphim

Alex Bishop,

Rev. A. Stanislavsky

I. Gromoglasov,

P. Lapin.

Managing the office of P. Sasha.

Clerk: N. Numerov

On the issue of subordinated overseas Church Administration Church in Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

(Investigation
case of Patriarch Tikhon. The collection of documents. According to the
materials of the Central Archive of the FSB of Russia. Orthodox St.
Tikhon Theological Institute. Moscow, 2000, p. 695).

Comments

# RE: Metropolitan Agafangel: The practical application of the Ordinance of 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362. - Elena 27.06.2014 11:02

Lord,
that you still write: "This decree today prescribes only one thing - to
unite all Orthodox people with the words:" the diocesan bishop
immediately enters into relations with the bishops of neighboring
dioceses. "Another understanding, interpretation and application of this
Regulation in the absence of forced isolation no It can not be. If the
bishops do not, leaving vdobrovolnuyu isolation, it is clear that they
are willing to church divisions, more often, in order to satisfy their
ambitions than make a canonical crime. " Nicely said first like even
want to believe. And then the question arises: why did you do in 2007
did not go to "intercourse with the bishops of neighboring dioceses"
(ROCA (V) RTOC, ROAC), and began to create a new and separate PSEA? So,
you do the same, and to convince yourself now: "If the bishops do not,
leaving in voluntary isolation, it is clear that they are willing to
church divisions, more often, in order to satisfy their ambitions than
make a canonical crime."

# The practical application of the Ordinance of 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362 - o.Aleksy 04/07/2014 15:23

You
write: It was also renamed Higher Church Administration in the South of
Russia in the Russian Higher Church Administration abroad. (4) Thus,
the Russian Ecclesiastical Authority for the first time surpassed the
canonical boundaries of the Local Russian Church. It is known that such a
step Archbishop Anthony decided, after much hesitation, and hesitation.
And it is possible to provide an explanation for confirmation that this canonical step?

# RE: The practical application of the Ordinance of 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362 - Internet Cathedral 07/04/2014 15:34

This
control is then recognized by all the local church. Eastern Patriarchs,
the unavailability of Patriarch Tikhon, sent greetings and other
letters to the Met. Anthony, as a representative of the Russian Orthodox
Church.

# RE: The practical application of the Ordinance of 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362 - about. Victor Dobrov 12/10/2014 5:15

# RE: Metropolitan Agafangel: The practical application of the Ordinance of 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362. - a. Victor Dobrov 12/10/2014 5:04

I had a namesake?

# RE: Metropolitan Agafangel: The practical application of the Ordinance of 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362. - a. Victor Dobrov 12/10/2014 5:25

Dear
Elena! The so-called ROCA (V), and RTOC RPATs are self-created tumors ,
illegal, non-canonical church governance, and have no canonical
episcopate. The decree also refers to the establishment of relations
with the canonical bishops canonical bishops of neighboring dioceses,
and not with the dissenters and parasinagogami.

# RE: Metropolitan Agafangel: The practical application of the Ordinance of 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362. - Narrator 10/12/2014 11:25

SW. o. Victor Dobrov, 1)
The fact that you came "namesake" this is not surprising. 2) "Elena" I
said see. below, only it seems to me, do not answer me. Usually in such
cases or did not meet, or write any "haze".

# RE: Metropolitan Agafangel: The practical application of the Ordinance of 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362. - Narrator 10/12/2014 11:21

Responsible for the lord, az accursed and unworthy servant of God - why
not logged in "intercourse" (it is not clear in what context the word
you eating now, because in saying nvmch. n. Tikhon - the word meant c.
communication with their own kind, and not schismatics koi and you
listed) -so p.ch. they do not want to. And
what's more: the whole subsequent history since 2007. continue to throw
mud at ROCA exercise. Metropolitan. Agafangel. Strange your question. And further: "So,
you do the same yourself now and denounced" - an interesting case. It
generally was written not to denounce someone, and for information. And
where did you get that "get yourself" - as if it was written to rebuke
someone? Strange you to read. One lie as "proof "of another. First,
you lied, ignoring the reality of splitters groups created
artificially, their unwillingness to repent, and then based on that
expressed once again the truth. I have the feeling that you have
something something in mind that is not present in the text, and you
proceed from this, presenting the matter as it is, while what do you
have as your answers based on some idea that you keep in his mind, and
your personal idea, and are formulated.

# RE: Metropolitan Agafangel: The practical application of the Ordinance of 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362. - Sergei 10/12/2014 16:39

Dear
Elena, you probably did not pay attention to the fact that the article
Bishop pointed to an origin story and RTOC ROAC. You might not know but
our Synod and Metropolitan undertook more than once attempted to
dialogue with RTOC and ROAC, but stretched our hand of friendship
bishops remained hanging in the air ...

# RE: Metropolitan Agafangel: The practical application of the Ordinance of 7/20 November 1920 for the number 362. - Sergei 10/12/2014 16:39

Dear
Elena, you probably did not pay attention to the fact that the article
Bishop pointed to an origin story and RTOC ROAC. You might not know but
our Synod and Metropolitan undertook more than once attempted to
dialogue with RTOC and ROAC, but stretched our hand of friendship
bishops remained hanging in the air ...

No comments:

Post a Comment

I, Joanna Higginbotham, administrator and comment moderator of this blog, do solemnly swear that Anonymous comments will not be published. Include your jurisdiction, rank/status (priest, layman, monk, catechumen, etc.). Use the NAME/URL option to enter a name or pseudonym. Reader Daniel will not see your unpublished comment, so if you have a message for him, contact him directly: oregdan@hotmail.com

Machine Translated

READER DANIEL 2017

READER DANIEL 1989

QUOTE

What separates us from the love of friends is envying or being envied, causing or receiving harm, insulting or being insulted, and suspicious thoughts. Would that you had never done or experienced anything of this sort and in this way separated yourself from the love of a friend.

Philokalia Vol. II, #21

QUOTE

'A faithful friend is beyond price' (Ecclus. 6:15), since he regards his friend's misfortunes as his own and suffers with him, sharing his trials until death.

Philokalia Vol. II, #93

OLD RUSSIAN SAYING

"If we have a good priest (or bishop), we give thanks to God. If a bad one, we endure him".